If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Non-Colts thread

According to former Player rep Joe Staysniak the players can walk w/o violating CBA if they feel safety being compromised..lets go players
Retweeted 340 times

Now its possible that didn't make the new CBA (and until Larry Coon makes a NFL CBA FAQ, I'm not even going to try and find it), but I gotta go with Big Joe (and DD) here.

"Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca

Re: Non-Colts thread

EDIT: When they go to replay on a called TD I'm not sure they can look for simultaneous reception and all of that... or if they can only look to see if the offensive player has possession and has crossed the plane of the goal line.

nfl just released statement saying that simultaneous possession in the end zone (only) IS reviewable. but they say the refs got it right.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:

Re: Non-Colts thread

sort of:

NFL sez: they missed the PI call, but the call on the reception was correctly upheld upon review.

"Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.

"While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

"When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

"Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

"Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: Non-Colts thread

Really?

Really?

They need to look up the word "simultaneous" in the dictionary.

It doesn't mean in this case "after somebody catches it and then after they roll around on the ground for a while, this is the first time to take a look, and thus if two people in fact have hands on the ball, that means it's simultaneous"

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

"Section 1. No Strike/Lockout: Except as otherwise provided in Article 47 (Union Security), Section 6, neither the NFLPA nor any of its members will engage in any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted action interfering with the operations of the NFL or any Club for the duration of this Agreement, and no Clubs, either individually or in concert with other Clubs, will engage in any lockout for the duration of this Agreement. Any claim that a party has violated this Section 1 will not be subject to the grievance procedure or the arbitration provisions of this Agreement and the party will have the right to submit such claim directly to the courts."

Article 47, Section 6 (pasted below) involves "union security" which may sound like "player safety" to the uninformed, but actually involves the power of the union to compel all players to pay union dues. (Specifically, if a court holds in the future that the NFLPA can't compel payment of dues, the NFLPA can reopen the CBA negotations or begin a strike).

Article 47, Section 6. Procedure for Enforcement:
(a) Upon written notification to the Management Council by the NFLPA that a player has not paid any initiation fee, dues or the equivalent service fee in violation of Section 1 of this Article, the Management Council will within seven days consider the matter. If there is no resolution of the matter within seven days, then the Club will, upon notification of the NFLPA, suspend the player without pay. Such suspension will con-tinue until the NFLPA has notified the Club in writing that the suspended player has satisfied his obligation as contained in Section 1 of this Article. The parties hereby agree that suspension without pay is adopted as a substitute for and in lieu of discharge as the penalty for a violation of the union security clause of the Agreement and that no player will be discharged for a violation of that clause. The player’s contract will be tolled dur-ing the period of any such suspension. A copy of all notices required by this “Procedure for the Enforcement of the Union Security Agreement Between the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA” will be simultaneously mailed to the player involved and the Management Council.
(b) It is further agreed that the term “member in good standing” as used in this Article applies only to payment of dues or initiation fee and not any other factors involved in union discipline.
(c) It is further agreed that notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, if at any time in the term of the Agreement, any court or agency shall wholly or partially invalidate the provisions of this Article relating to Union Security, then the NFLPA may reopen this Agreement upon the giving of 10 days’ written notice, with reference solely
to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will have an obligation to resume negotiations limited to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will be free to engage in whatever concerted or other action may be permitted by law in support of their positions.

So unless there is something directly contradictory to this in the CBA (and I looked in the places where it might be), walking out is not an option

Re: Non-Colts thread

I don't disagree with it being an INT, but I don't blame the refs for making the call. In real time you couldn't tell exactly who had it when. While it definitely looked like a pick in the replays I am not sure there was definite evidence. Like others have said too, I'm not sure the regular refs would've gotten it right. The OPI you can't argue though. That was obvious.

Re: Non-Colts thread

Quoting from page 22 "Section 1. No Strike/Lockout: Except as otherwise provided in Article 47 (Union Security), Section 6, neither the NFLPA nor any of its members will engage in any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted action interfering with the operations of the NFL or any Club for the duration of this Agreement, and no Clubs, either individually or in concert with other Clubs, will engage in any lockout for the duration of this Agreement. Any claim that a party has violated this Section 1 will not be subject to the grievance procedure or the arbitration provisions of this Agreement and the party will have the right to submit such claim directly to the courts."

Article 47, Section 6 (pasted below) involves "union security" which may sound like "player safety" to the uninformed, but actually involves the power of the union to compel all players to pay union dues. (Specifically, if a court holds in the future that the NFLPA can't compel payment of dues, the NFLPA can reopen the CBA negotations or begin a strike).

Article 47, Section 6. Procedure for Enforcement:
(a) Upon written notification to the Management Council by the NFLPA that a player has not paid any initiation fee, dues or the equivalent service fee in violation of Section 1 of this Article, the Management Council will within seven days consider the matter. If there is no resolution of the matter within seven days, then the Club will, upon notification of the NFLPA, suspend the player without pay. Such suspension will con-tinue until the NFLPA has notified the Club in writing that the suspended player has satisfied his obligation as contained in Section 1 of this Article. The parties hereby agree that suspension without pay is adopted as a substitute for and in lieu of discharge as the penalty for a violation of the union security clause of the Agreement and that no player will be discharged for a violation of that clause. The player’s contract will be tolled dur-ing the period of any such suspension. A copy of all notices required by this “Procedure for the Enforcement of the Union Security Agreement Between the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA” will be simultaneously mailed to the player involved and the Management Council.
(b) It is further agreed that the term “member in good standing” as used in this Article applies only to payment of dues or initiation fee and not any other factors involved in union discipline.
(c) It is further agreed that notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, if at any time in the term of the Agreement, any court or agency shall wholly or partially invalidate the provisions of this Article relating to Union Security, then the NFLPA may reopen this Agreement upon the giving of 10 days’ written notice, with reference solely
to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will have an obligation to resume negotiations limited to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will be free to engage in whatever concerted or other action may be permitted by law in support of their positions.

So unless there is something directly contradictory to this in the CBA (and I looked in the places where it might be), walking out is not an option

edit: sorry for the messed up formatting

I agree the clause you are referencing is not about this, but I find it hard to believe that the Union has no repercussions to the NFL if they believe that player safety is being compromised.

Re: Non-Colts thread

I just don't see how anyone can watch that and say Tate got to the ball the same time as Jennings. It's just not even close IMO. In fact, to me it looks like Tate's arms are still moving toward the ball as Jennings already has it in his hands.

The Following User Says Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:

Re: Non-Colts thread

The only point I can fathom for striking players is to argue to a judge that the use replacement referees represent a drastic change in the work environment that could not have been anticipated at the time that the agreement was signed.

I don't think that would fly, since when the agreement was signed, the timeline for expiration of the last agreement with the officials was known to both parties.

Since the language is pretty specific, I don't see much wiggle room. A judge could declare striking players in violation of the CBA and grant the league major damages, such as a bigger cut of TV revenue.

A player's strike seems unworkable.

The fans have the only power to use. We are addicted to the product though. We are on crack and have to turn away from the crack until they make better crack. can we do that? I'm nearing the point where I think I can. I didn't tune in until the 4th Q last night, for example.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: Non-Colts thread

The only point I can fathom for striking players is to argue to a judge that the use of replacement referees represent a drastic change in the work environment and worker safety that could not have been anticipated at the time that the agreement was signed.

I don't think that would fly, since when the agreement was signed, the timeline for expiration of the last agreement with the officials was known to both parties.

Since the language is pretty specific, I don't see much wiggle room. A judge could declare striking players in violation of the CBA and grant the league major damages, such as a bigger cut of TV revenue.

A player's strike seems unworkable.

The fans have the only power to use. We are addicted to the product though.

I think at this point it is going to take an injury to a big time player, on a play that should have been prevented. I am thinking a head injury to a starting QB who is sliding. Or it's going to take a massive fight, both of which, based on what the refs have been missing pretty consistently (late hits or away from the play hits on QBs and receivers) seem kind of likely. It is clear this is not going to motivate Goodell otherwise we would already be seeing it in the news. First game of this week is on Thursday, which IMO already suggests that week 4 is going to be another week of this mess.

Re: Non-Colts thread

so the NFL needs its Ron Artest and its Malice at the Palace?

:bricks:

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: Non-Colts thread

I mean doesn't it unfortunately seem like it is the path we are heading down? I don't see it ending with fans, but two teams brawling doesn't seem far fetched. How many times a game are we seeing people shoving, wrestling, punching? 15+? It sure seems like it and nothing ever gets called. They let them go all the way up until the ball is spotted. It is crazy.

Re: Non-Colts thread

Dakich told me I am oversimplifying it by explaining that once he removed one hand from the ball, he relinquished possession. That makes it so that when he throws his arm back in there that it's no longer simultaneous.

Re: Non-Colts thread

Funny that the NFL put the part about missing the pass interference call first in the statement.

Like sticking a daisy on a turd, thinking the fans might not notice.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: Non-Colts thread

Why is Wilson the best QB in the NFL?
While any QB can win a game for his team with a TD pass, only Wilson can win a game for his team with an INT.

What do the replacement refs have in common with Billy Graham?
They both have the ability to make thousands stand in unison and yell "Je sus Christ!".

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-25-2012 at 02:17 PM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: Non-Colts thread

His left foot only goes out after he has already made the catch and brought it to the ground, maintaining control, though. Once his butt hits the ground, the play is over and he has the ball in both hands.

So, no that doesn't matter.

No, that's not true. Ask Hines Ward. Still trying to find the video on the internet but I remember the play itself vividly - both feet down, in the end zone, play over, touchdown, then he rolled over out of bounds and the ball wobbled and they ruled he didn't have control all the way through the catch even though he broke plane, with possession, two feet down, etc.

I still think the refs blew that call, but apparently they got it right and the rule for a touchdown has been changed because of a replay procedure, not an actual rule change.

Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you